McRae v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2022 )

Appellate Case: 22-4023 Document: 010110755356 Date Filed: 10/19/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 19, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
STEPHEN PLATO MCRAE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 22-4023
(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00066-RJS)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; (D. Utah)
IRON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; PURGATORY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; FNU
CHENEY, Sgt.; FNU SHAFER; FNU
FIELDING,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Stephen McRae appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint for failure
to prosecute. For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we
affirm.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 22-4023 Document: 010110755356 Date Filed: 10/19/2022 Page: 2
McRae, a federal prisoner representing himself pro se, filed this lawsuit to
challenge the conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388(1971). The district court ordered McRae to file an amended complaint curing
various deficiencies. After his deadline for complying with that order had expired,
McRae filed an amended complaint that did not address all of the deficiencies
identified by the district court. The district court accordingly ordered McRae to file a
second amended complaint within thirty days to address these deficiencies. McRae
did not comply with this deadline either, and the court issued an order to show cause
why the complaint should not therefore be dismissed. McRae filed various other
motions and documents over the next several months, but he did not file his second
amended complaint until almost one year after the thirty-day deadline had expired.
Nevertheless, the court did not dismiss the action, but simply screened the untimely
second amended complaint for deficiencies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In an order dated November 13, 2019, the district court concluded the second
amended complaint still contained some deficiencies, which the court ordered McRae
to cure by filing a third amended complaint. This order did not immediately reach
McRae, however, because he had been moved to a different correctional facility and
his change-of-address form was not correctly recorded on the district court’s docket.
The district court dismissed the action with prejudice in January 2020 based on
McRae’s failure to file a third amended complaint. In March 2020, McRae finally
received a copy of both the November 2019 order to cure deficiencies and the
2
Appellate Case: 22-4023 Document: 010110755356 Date Filed: 10/19/2022 Page: 3
January 2020 dismissal order. He then filed a post-judgment motion for relief based
on the evidence that he had not received the November 2019 order due to the court’s
failure to properly record his change-of-address form on the docket. The district
court denied the motion, and McRae appealed. This court reversed and remanded
with directions for the district court to reconsider McRae’s argument and evidence
regarding the change-of-address issue. McRae v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 21-
4033, 2021 WL 4486396 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021) (unpublished).
On remand, in an order dated January 1, 2022, the district court vacated its
dismissal order and ordered McRae to file a third amended complaint, as originally
instructed in the November 2019 order, within thirty days. In March 2022, having
received nothing from McRae, the district court dismissed the action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) based on the failure to prosecute. McRae then filed this appeal.
In his appellate brief, McRae argues the district court erred in dismissing this
action for two reasons: (1) the district court should have excused his failure to file a
third amended complaint on remand because the Bureau of Prisons lost or destroyed
a motion for an extension of time that he placed in the mail in late January 2022; and
(2) it was unreasonable for the district court to order him to file a third amended
complaint in the first place. McRae did not raise either of these arguments before the
district court, and we therefore do not consider them on appeal.1 See Braxton v.
1
McRae does not explain why he failed to raise these arguments in the district
court. Even assuming he was unaware of the basis for his lost-mail argument until
the district court dismissed the action in March 2022, he does not explain why he
could not have raised this argument in a post-judgment motion for relief, as he had
3
Appellate Case: 22-4023 Document: 010110755356 Date Filed: 10/19/2022 Page: 4
Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156, 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (declining to consider arguments that
pro se plaintiffs had not raised in the district court); Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d
1063, 1068 (10th Cir. 2009) (same); Crow v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 323, 324 (10th Cir.
1994) (“Absent compelling reasons, we do not consider arguments that were not
presented to the district court.”).
“This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to
dismiss an action for failure to prosecute.” Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC
Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1143 (10th Cir. 2007). Having reviewed McRae’s
appellate filings, the district court’s thorough and well-stated dismissal order, and the
entire record in this case, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
by dismissing this action for failure to prosecute. The district court engaged in an
extensive analysis of the governing multi-factor test from Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,
965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992), and reasonably concluded dismissal was an
appropriate sanction under the facts of this particular case.
previously done with the change-of-address issue. Moreover, even if we were to
excuse his failure to raise this argument below, we note that he has presented no
evidence to support it. Cf. Nasious v. Robinson, 396 F. App’x 526, 529 (10th Cir.
2010) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value) (rejecting a pro
se prisoner’s “vague and conclusory allegation that the mail room staff somehow lost
or tampered with his mail” based on the lack of supporting evidence and the fact that
numerous other pleadings had “traveled successfully between [the prisoner] and the
courts,” indicating there was “no serious or consistent problem with the mail services
within the prison”).
4
Appellate Case: 22-4023 Document: 010110755356 Date Filed: 10/19/2022 Page: 5
We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing this action. We deny
McRae’s Motion Seeking Emergency Court Order for Monetary Sanctions Against
BOP. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
5